NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Wikipedia:

A straw man or man of straw is a dummy in the shape of a human created by stuffing straw into clothes. Straw men are used as scarecrows, combat-training targets, effigies to be burned, and as rodeo dummies to distract bulls.

As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.

The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that every argument for that position has been refuted.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

My question for everyone is: In your debates here on the forum have you ever been challenged with a straw man argument, and did you see red?

From the Wikipedia:



My question for everyone is: In your debates here on the forum have you ever been challenged with a straw man argument, and did you see red?
it only really bugs me when its a straw man that was created not by the poster but by rush limbaugh and repeated by the poster.

it only really bugs me when its a straw man that was created not by the poster but by rush limbaugh and repeated by the poster.
And do you see red when that happens?

i never see red online

what I love to do is misrepresent my opponent as refuting a strawman and then refute that misrepresentation, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted

Then I see green and blue. With gold stars. :D

i never see red online

Are you colorblind?

what I love to do is misrepresent my opponent as refuting a strawman and then refute that misrepresentation, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted

Then I see green and blue. With gold stars. :D

A second order straw man? Deadly :cool:
After that amount of mental gymnastics I'd be dizzy and seeing stars, too.

When I was in sales I'd deliberately set up a straw man for them to attack. Then when they did, I'd turn the (weak) objection around by pointing out (in a polite way) that it wasn't really an issue, and then closing the sale. Bloody devious.

what I love to do is misrepresent my opponent as refuting a strawman and then refute that misrepresentation, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted

Then I see green and blue. With gold stars. :D

Now that's what those religious debates need. :)

I can only recall one time when someone used a straw man argument against me. It was actually a string of straw man arguments used in a vain attempt to refute the omniscience of the Grandfather Economic Report. I saw red, alright.

I think that Strawmen are the order of the day 'round here. "Why X Hates X"...just about every thread with the word "Hypocracy" in the title...most threads that start with "A question for..."

Look at a thread with both strong and weak arguments-the weak ones have a dozen responses and the strong ones have maybe one if there happens to be a strong debator on the other side at the time-otherwise the strong argument will get buried and by page 5 it's nonsense until another attempt is made.

Mostly because it's easier to go after them no matter who you are. If you've got a Cat-Tribe-esque post with citation and such and another that says "evilevilevilyousuck" the latter is going to be easier to go after.

It's pretty frustrating. More so when I realise that I have fallen into the same trap.

Mostly because it's easier to go after them no matter who you are. If you've got a Cat-Tribe-esque post with citation and such and another that says "evilevilevilyousuck" the latter is going to be easier to go after.

That's happened to me with about half of the posts that I really put some effort in to and researched. They were completely ignored. I know my opposition saw them, but they either ignored it or hated what they were reading and self-righteously decided that I was full of it and refused to bending down to my level by addressing my points.

I like Cat-Tribe and his posts. Anyone that can leave me sputtering for a couple hours until I start to think "Damn, maybe I'm wrong" must be doing something right. If I don't reply to his posts it's because I'm too busy licking my metaphoricall wounds.

That's happened to me with about half of the posts that I really put some effort in to and researched. They were completely ignored. I know my opposition saw them, but they either ignored it or hated what they were reading and self-righteously decided that I was full of it and refused to bending down to my level by addressing my points.

I like Cat-Tribe and his posts. Anyone that can leave me sputtering for a couple hours until I start to think "Damn, maybe I'm wrong" must be doing something right. If I don't reply to his posts it's because I'm too busy licking my metaphoricall wounds.

I look forward to tangling with Cat-Tribe some time, though I'll probably get pissed if he starts asking for documentation. While I'm widely read I haven't bothered to keep a list of citations and sources, I devote my record keeping skills to documenting my work. A necessary survival skill since I have a talent for aggravating management.

That's happened to me with about half of the posts that I really put some effort in to and researched. They were completely ignored. I know my opposition saw them, but they either ignored it or hated what they were reading and self-righteously decided that I was full of it and refused to bending down to my level by addressing my points.

I like Cat-Tribe and his posts. Anyone that can leave me sputtering for a couple hours until I start to think "Damn, maybe I'm wrong" must be doing something right. If I don't reply to his posts it's because I'm too busy licking my metaphoricall wounds.
I should add that what I put was the most cynical. Pride and efficiency would keep people from responding to strong arguments because they nail it and it isn't common for people to go, "You know what? I got nothin'. I'll have to conceed." They usually just go away.

Though I don't always consider someone not responding as victory. As you pointed out, there are a number of reasons people stop responding-they've been 'owned' and are sulking, they dismiss out of hand and decide 'they can't be bothered' (which might be the facade of the first one), they have to (gasp) get up and actually do something in the real world and weren't that invested in the argument to revive it when they get back (my #1 reason for not responding to stuff), etc. But in comparing the number of responses to bad arguments and the number of responses to good ones you can certainly form a theory...

An actual civilised discussion!! Thank god, I was inspired to start this thread by some of responses I've read on the anarchy and environment thread and I find it refreshing to come across a little bit of civility w/o any 'gotcha' arguments extending from straw men.

Oh, forgot to define academic charity. Don't have one handy, but broadly speaking, it's assuming the strongest possible argument on your opponents behalf when there is a possibility of multiple interpretations available.

I have to say yes ... and usually the worst are in religious threads


generally those of us on the non theist side are well read and have a lot of information into our arguments (namely people like grave_n_idle) and straw men are used on the other side a lot

Personally throes are the ones getting me seeing red

generally I get in on the logic arguments of anything so I dont deal with the mass citation that goes on with people like cat ... but I do read his and other posts

Anyways I know I am blabbering here but I have a lot of respect for throes with a well thought out position ... keep them coming and dont fall to creating your own straw men (well I dont mean like cats double strawman rather then misrepresenting THOUGHT out opposition)

Oh, forgot to define academic charity. Don't have one handy, but broadly speaking, it's assuming the strongest possible argument on your opponents behalf when there is a possibility of multiple interpretations available.oh, I thought it was a reference to the story where the father of a college freshman suggests that she donate some of her high grade point average to a lazy student who had a low GPA. That story sure was a strawman

An actual civilised discussion!!

Right, so, anyway, I hear the DA in Los Angeles is going to charge Jesus with molesting several young boys. Apparently they'll be initiating the trial with him in absentia, a first for the United States (as far as I know).

Thoughts?

Right, so, anyway, I hear the DA in Los Angeles is going to charge Jesus with molesting several young boys. Apparently they'll be initiating the trial with him in absentia, a first for the United States (as far as I know).

Thoughts?

Very few on the part of the DA, I'd say.

Right, so, anyway, I hear the DA in Los Angeles is going to charge Jesus with molesting several young boys. Apparently they'll be initiating the trial with him in absentia, a first for the United States (as far as I know).

Thoughts?I didn't expect a Republican to accuse Jesus of that.